From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2016 08:47:00 +0100
Message-ID: <14381847.eEjaEFYMVs@cherry>
In-Reply-To: <6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com>
References: <C10BF9D1-435D-47C9-B98C-9B118B5922A1@gmx.com>
	<2318925.r6f9XVyAit@cherry>
	<6AAD09CF-937E-4D35-B70A-CFDAB84A6B32@gmx.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited
	Node Deals With Large Blocks
Precedence: list

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 15:35:49 CET Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Therefore, it is in the best interest of miners to all set the same block
> size limit (and reliably signal in their coinbase TX what that limit is,
> as done by Bitcoin Unlimited miners).

As a point of interest, last week I merged into Classic the same concept. 
Classic will now respect the EB limit and put it in the coinbase.

>  (This actually surprised me because the only way they could lose money is
>  if some _other_ miner wasted even more money by purposely mining a
>  destined-to-be-orphaned block.)

Your surprise may come from the difference in cost vs. expected earnings of 
creating a block, which is quite significant.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel